This guy slaps your girl in the ass and says "Marxian Socialism must always remain a portent to the historians of...

This guy slaps your girl in the ass and says "Marxian Socialism must always remain a portent to the historians of Opinion — how a doctrine so illogical and so dull can have exercised so powerful and enduring an influence over the minds of men, and, through them, the events of history."

How do you respond?

Other urls found in this thread:

I shoot him in self defense.

I check my own muh privilege before anything else.
How is this possible
For real. There is no argument. It is just an opinion by some dude. Just tell him that he gets the bullet too as an offhand joke and walk away, before smashing his balls for sexually harassing a someone.

Keynes is /ourguy/ fuck you

No, he is not. Mister imperfect markets, presupposes that markets don't fuck up everything in the first place. His "fix" led us directly to neoliberal economic policies.

Say its too bad Kalecki didn't publish Theory of Economic Dynamics in english when he had the chance.

Keynes was pretty based though and his fundamental theory (effective demand) and works on probability and uncertainty are pretty accurate and still relevant. Modern Marxian economics owes a lot to him and the likes of Joan Robinson, Galbraith, and its a shame more lefties don't read them more often.

I'm only in it for the butch so that matter would be handled relatively quickly.

Girl muscles are good.

Actually Post Keynesian economist steve keen argued that keynes was influenced by marx but pretended not to be to ward off accusations of leftism

His fix was greatly in stark contrast to neoliberal economic policies, tl;dr liquidity preference people would rather hold cash than invest in illiquid assets, yada yada monetary discretion doesn't do junk so you've got to do fiscal expansion, hence run deficits and focus on spending in areas with high multipliers and giving to people with high propensities to spend. However you're right in the sense that he did not heed the potential political dynamics that would ensue from sustained full employment, basically supply constraints amd high bargaining power led to more frequent industrial action which angered capital, this combined with the OPEC oil supply constraint and shit led to neoliberalism. Blame Keynes for having a blindspot, he didn't want any of Neoliberalism..

That was Minsky who was influenced by Marx but hid it so he could teach at university, Keynes influences were pretty obvious and weren't Marxian and were largely Wicksell and Marshall and chatter in his ear from Sraffa and Robinson at Cambridge.

Uhhh have you read 'The Theory' ? He clearly says in there that 'The great puzzle of effective demand with which Malthus had wrestled vanished from economic literature. You will not find it mentioned even once in the whole works of Marshall, Edgeworth and Professor Pigou, from whose hands the classical theory has received its most mature embodiment. It could only live on furtively, below the surface, in the underworlds of Karl Marx, Silvio Gesell or Major Douglas.'

I don't have anything against Keynes, just people who think that he was /ourguy/. Economy is is hardly predictable on every level. Just poiting out that his failure led to worse conditions for workers.

Hitler did nothing wrong of course

than what could be said of the conditions of workers in former soviet states, or current china and vietnam? And which remaining success of any anarchist movements, there is some promise for a Libertarian Socialist society to last in Rojava but idunno dude.. can't fault people for trying, Keynes just wanted us to have a good time.. literally

I mean the malthusian influence is pretty explicit and id sound retarded if i said otherwise but if we are talking about Keynes less explicit influences

Definitely not. Some post-Kenyesians are okay, and I tolerate them the same way I tolerate tankies, but Keynes wasn't a Leftist and there's very little in his economics of value for Leftists imo.

your opinion doesn't count for shit when faced with the reality of the macroeconomy. You don't realize the fundamental struggle in the labour market that full employment is all about increasing labour bargaining power, allowing the right to refuse work for poor conditions, and forcing the hand of policy space in order to increase democratic control of the economy.

Keynes provides a relatively accurate scheme by which to understand how the labour market operates and why it doesn't clear in a closed economy, it is of great use to the left.

Part of the reason Keynes is disliked is because Keynesian economics is generally macro-oriented [i.e. towards the overall state of the economy], where neoclassical types want to turn macroeconomics into applied microeconomics. [i.e. figuring out what individual firms would do.]

The collapse of Keynesian economics owes far more to the flawed way in which it was understood, because - as Keynes noted - the trouble isn't having new ideas, it's forgetting your old ones. Economists didn't want to forget their shit old ideas and instead tried to reconcile Keynes with what they already knew.

Keynes only undesirable action in this case was working himself to death in WW2.

You shouldn't have to be a Marxist to be /ourguy/ if you were broadly on the right path, which Keynes certainly was.
(With some necessary accounting for when he says something ghastly about the left, factoring in his background.)

what an inspiring quote, I think I'll reblog it.

No, it is of great use to critique capitalism. However that is not the goal of Keynesianism, the goal is to try and fix capitalism. Instead of coming to the conclusion that we should abolish capitalism, he proposes a way to make capital more bearable. At the same time, Keynesianism cannot fix unemployment forever. This would require ever increasing tax income used for state spending.

Keynesianism is itself not a prescription for economic policy, its a family of theories pertaining to the behaviour of market economies like modern capitalism.


This is not true for Modern Monetary schemes, basically if you have a free floating exchange currency and sovereign issued currency you can finance a fairly large deficit and only be limited by inflation. That is because they will tend towards satisfying the Marshall-Lerner condition over the long run hence any depreciation in currency will result in an improvement in trade accounts hence the increasing trade surplus (or decreasing trade deficit) will offset the pressure on federal institutions to absorb debt in order to finance, that combined with the multiplier effect allows considerable fiscal flexibility.

Dude Venezuela lmao

[Dubious - Discuss]
The whole point of countercyclical spending is that you run a deficit. If you're in a recession and you increase taxes, you're just going to make it worse. (Theoretically - I mean, if you were taxing rent-seekers or taking money from people with a low tendency to spend it and giving it to people who'll spend it, that's different, but ignore that.) Even if you accept some sort of balanced-budget crankery "The boom, not the slump, is the right time for austerity at the Treasury."

Yes a large part of the failure was their inability to consider the possibility of a supply shock due to the insistence on a strict Phillips Curve relationship in the IS/LM.

Had Keynes survived he may have corrected the mistake, and had many more people listen to his contemporary Kalecki's forewarning of the potential for Investor backlash against full employment we may have pursued a very different response to stagflation.

I'm aSocialist and I think Keynes was /ourguy/ tbh, he had a radical vision of what Liberalism was meant to be that lent itself to the "dialectical enlightenment" position a lot of us DemSocs and publications like Jacobin push.

Venezuela is not a Modern Monetary scheme you dip, it doesn't have a free floating currency its petrodollar reserved backed and they attempt an Impossible trinity of open trade in capital goods, fixed exchange and non-independent central banking. Don't be a fucking ignoramus, read a fucking book.


also cool socdem flag gonna use it

Pick one.

is right. Venezuela doesn't do MMT. MMT guys don't recommend trying to peg your country's currency exchange rate.

Agree with him. If ledtism ever wants to amount to anything, Marxism must be cast into the dustbin of history where it belongs.

t.ancrap in disguise

I elbow him in the face, bourgie cunt.

Ok Sraffa had Marxian influences but largely as a stepping bridge to Ricardo, so i'll give you that. Keynes was indirectly influenced by Marx, but he wasn't "secretly" influenced by Marx. The story alludes to is actually one where Steve Keen visited an old colleague of Minsky and the story goes that Minsky's parents were Mensheviks who left to the USA from Belarus, and Minsky had a deep familiarity with Marxian economics early on in his career. Its further validated by his tutelage under Schumpeter who himself was no stranger to Marx.

Its fairly well known now that most of the Radical Keynesians were reading Marx anyway so its no secret any more that Minsky had huge marxian influences.

I slap his ass and ask him if he want to come drink some more champagne.

Don't forget Wittgenstein was also in the Cambridge group, was best pals with Sraffa who smuggled Gramsci's works from prison under Il Duce, while Sraffa was also chummy with Turati

True that, Sraffa's friendship with Gramsci is a cute footnote in history, both ended up influencing the New Left in their own ways, Sraffa inspiring stuff like The Monthly Review and Gramsci's influence doesn't need to be stated since its basically in our language now.

I make him read Mattick:

Do you know anything about I think it was Fred Lee (?) American dude, shilling for "heterodox economcis", recently died, IIRC tried his own synthesis by combining pieces from different schools like institutional, post-Keynesian and Marxian. Seemed really interesting.

Read the article but i'm not quite sure where the "critique" of Keynes's theory of employment and the defense of Marx's theory in spite of it is.

No but if you could get me a reference I'd love to check it out, even though I'm skeptical of all those attempts at "modernizing" or "reinventing" economics (*cough* MTT).

That text is more of a defense of Marx, how Marx basically already said things Keynes said, or that Keynes was flat-out wrong or even utterly uninformed about Marx in his critiques, hence more apt as a reponse to the OP.

A full critique by Mattick of Keynesianism can be found here if that's what you'd like: (also preludes to the fact that Keynesian failure wholly enabled a return to laissez-faire (neo)neoliberalism).

Yeah he wrote "Post-Keynesian Price Theory" which is basically the administered pricing theory we are familiar with today developed largely from Kalecki, here's an interview with the guy

First paragraph you quote is spot on. Though it is overall a rather muddled essay.
>It is not necessary to agree with Keynes as to the cause of unemployment to recognize that the policies he suggested to combat it have been the policies of all governments in recent history whether they were aware of his theories or not. They had made their historical debut long before their theoretical expression. All the monetary and fiscal innovations had already been tried: public works, inflation and deficit-financing are as old as government rule and have been employed in many a crisis situation. In modern times, however, they have been regarded as exceptions to the rule, excusable in times of social stress but disastrous as a permanent policy.
But economists very familiar with Keynes claim that not even politicians that call themselves Keynesian have been Keynesian. And the two parts I made bold here contradict themselves.

He wrote this on the history, got part way thru it was pretty good
There's also this

thx, i really need to devote more of my autism to econ

I think the history text was supposed to contain the synthesis but I didn't get that far.

They don't contradict themselves IMO. Just remember that he wrote this in '69, when the normalcy of Keynesianism was prior to that starting to crumble. Keynesian theory (analysises, understandings, etc.) have more or less remained legitimate in neoclassical bourgeois economics. It is Keynesian policy that has been discredited.

Thanks, I'ma look at that some time.


Sorry but this guy already BTFO all underconsumptionist theories of crisis including keynesianism

I push him down and say "ha, nice stagflation nerd!"

As you descend the staircase, laugh in whisper tones about his balls going into the dustbin of history.

you fucking Roses could at least pretend that you aren't closet Keynesians

Pretty sure no fancy theory is needed to blow out underconsumptionists. There have been several guests on the alpha2omega podcast talking about stats about demand and recessions, and each one said profits go down before recession, not consumption. I wouldn't call Keynes a hardcore underconsumptionist, he rather talked about expectation of profits determining investment, with current consumption helping with making expectations optimistic. But it appears even the more moderate version of the underconsumptionist thesis doesn't work.


Finding out Keynes was gay has to be one of the most hilarious revelations I've come across. I mean I can understand a famous artist or eccentric statesman, but finding out that the same guy who wrote the famously dry and opaque General Theory was also a massive gay swinger with up to 100 excursions a year was just surreal.

It seems u have posted using the leftcom flag. Ur post has been archived. Thank u.

It's almost as if we're all individuals